MANAGER SUPREME MOTORS vs K. SHANTARAM SHANBHOGUE

THIS appeal by the Opp. Party is directed against the order dated 16-11-1993 passed by the District Forum, Mangalore in Complaint No. DKDF/ CC/237/92-93 directing the Opp. Party to refund a sum of Rs. 9,365.88/- with interest thereon to the complainant.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: THE Opp. Party furnished a price list pertaining to a new Diese Matador F 305 pickup van as per Exhibit-C.1. As per this list, the total price of the said pickup van was Rs. 1,70,738.03. The Opp. Party subsequently wrote a letter on 22-2-1992 as per Exhibit C-2 to the complainant and informed him that there was likelihood of the price increase after the budget and so the complainant were to pay the full price of the vehicle by a Demand Draft and take delivery of the vehicle on or before 26-2-1992, he can take the vehicle at the price of Rs. 1,70,738-03. The complainant accordingly sent the full price of the vehicle to the Opp. Party by a Demand Draft on 24-2-1992. But the Opp. Party failed to deliver the vehicle as promised. Instead by a notice dated 14-3-1992 the Opp. Party demanded a higher price of Rs. 1,80,103.91 and the complainant was compelled to make payment of this higher price and take delivery of the vehicle on 26-3-1992. The complainant sought refund of the said higher price so collected from him.

The Opp. Party filed its version and admitted the fact that he had written such a letter as per Exhibit C-2 and the complainant in pursuance of the said letter had sent the total price of Rs. 1,70,738-03. The Opp. Party further averred that the price prevailing at the time of the delivery of the vehicle was collected from the complainant and no higher price was collected. The Opp. Party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and got Exhibits C-l to C.8 marked in evidence. The Opp. Party examined R.W. 1 and got Exts. R.1 to R.4 marked in evidence. The District Forum appreciating this material placed on record held that the Opp. Party even after collecting the full price from the complainant, as promised by him under Exhibit-C-2, did not deliver the vehicle to the complainant on receipt of the full price of the vehicle from the complainant; and in that view directed the Opp. Party to refund the higher price collected from the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle in the last week of March, 1992.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. WE have perused the material on record. It is a fact that the price list Exhibit C-l did show the price of the vehicle as subject to change without notice and that the price prevailing on the date of delivery would be applicable. But Ex. C-2 admittedly a letter written by the Opp. Party to the complainant did show that the total price of the vehicle as Rs. 1,70,308-03 and the complainant was informed if he were to take delivery of the vehicle on or before me evening of 26-2-1992 he was to make payment of this sum and take delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly the complainant made payment of the said entire sum to the Opp. Party on 24-2-1992. But the Opp. Party failed to give delivery of the said vehicle to the complainant. The price of the vehicle was increased only after the said letter i.e., 26-2-1992. The Opp. Party gave delivery of the vehicle only on 26-3-1992 by collecting the higher price, as by that time the price of the vehicle was increased. This shows that the Opp. Party failed it deliver the vehicle to the complainant as promised under Exhibit C-2. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Forum.

IN the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.